DC gays to blackmail closeted priests

I have a serious question for the anti-SSM folks. Under what circumstances would you accept that the government you fund with your tax dollars offers a preferred status to everyone but you? Seriously. I don't want to hear about religion or morality or heaven or hell. Tell me. I pay taxes as much an anyone (actually MORE than most), yet I can NEVER get what you get. Would you be willing to give it all up (the automatic survivor benefits, the spousal immunity, the custody rights, the social security benefits) as a trade off for preserving marriage solely for straight people?

In a civil society, where the laws have a secular basis, even if informed by community sentiment reflecting moral and religious faith of individual citizens, there is little basis (as a matter of law) either to define homosexuality as a mental or emotional disorder, nor to dismiss the possibility that it is not what God intended. I've been acquainted with openly gay individuals in many contexts, as friends, neighbors and co-workers. They are not a danger to others around them, and if they are a danger to themselves, it is either a spiritual one, which is between them and God, or it is a physical one no worse than the risks run by bungee jumpers and other extreme sports enthusiasts. There is no basis to confine, discriminate against, or "treat" anyone, unless, of course, someone subject to homosexual impulses should decide to SEEK treatment, for reasons that seem good to themselves. In the latter case, it is nobody's business to tell them that they should not do so. It is entirely possible, and entirely outside the jurisdiction of the United States, that God, assuming there is one, intended sexuality to be a specific bond between a man and a woman. If so, then homosexuality is statistically speaking a deviation from the norm, and perhaps even sinful. Gay pride advocates don't have to take anyone's word for it that their feelings for each other are sinful, people who believe that the union of a man and a woman reflects the image of God, and gay sex does not, don't have to accept the gay pride view as The Truth.

Laim617, I'm afraid you don't have much of an argument. The benefits you recite are not denied to you because you are gay. They are denied to you because you are not married. They are also denied to me, because I am not married -- I'm a single heterosexual male. No law says that you cannot marry because you are gay. You don't happen to desire what the law recognizes as a marriage, but you could enter into one if you wished. Therefore, you have the same protection of the laws that each of us has. Equal protection does not mean we all get equal outcomes, it means that any individual, similarly situated, should have the same options as any other individual, similarly situated. I voted against my state's "defense of marriage" amendment, and I wouldn't stir myself either way if the legislature passed a statute providing marriage licenses for same sex couples. But just because others are getting tax benefits you are not doesn't mean you are oppressed. You might have a good argument for tax simplification.

Gerard,

Yes, I read and Socarides link. And? He has a theory about homosexuality that is not borne out by the evidence.

And for any scientific controversy, when one side claims that the other one is unfairly shutting them out of publications, I always smell a rat. Certainly research is still done on sexuality and it gets published. Not all the published research is flattering to gay people.

Of course, when if you feel shut out of the major journals, you can start competing ones. NARTH did that, didn't they? And so they get to publish Paul Cameron, whose poor methodology dooms his papers from publication in the larger journals. (Cameron is known for his calculation of the average age at death of gay men. His data was a set of obits from gay publications, which means he was cherry picking a group of AIDS activists, notable for their deaths at young ages.)

Socarides starts with the supposition that only heterosexuality is normal and healthy, and that anything other is not healthy. Well, that's just circular. In the piece you link to, he pooh-poohs the idea that there are no associated pathologies with homosexuality. "So what?" is his view. So what if there are well-adjusted, happy, and successful gay people?

In Socarides world, these well-adjusted, happy, successful gay people just don't how sick and unhappy they are, poor things. This is junk science.

Now the important part of the DSM is that if it isn't in there, you can't bill insurance for it. You need a code on the forms. That's why they came up with a diagnostic category for people unhappy with their sexuality.

You were right, however, about my comments on COURAGE. While I feel that consensual adult sex can be a healthy part of one's life, it's not mandatory. I should not criticize those who choose not to engage in sex. However, that some gay people choose celibacy doesn't mean that all gay people ought to be obligated to do so.